ever-so-slightly-monstrous:

“Just owning books in and of itself is a telling social marker, and the number of books you own is another one. The bookshelfie and shelfie alike are ways not just to geek out with fellow book fiends, but also to send a signal about your cultural, social, and class position. Owning large quantities of books, being familiar with them, frequently referring to them, working in an industry where books are valued, these are all markers of upper middle class status, reflecting education, purchasing power, and social privilege.”

s.e. smith, ‘Is the ‘Shelfie’ Just Intellectual Wankery?,’ xoJane (via se-smith)

Speaking as the grandaughter of immigrants, as the daughter of working-class people (all of whom had piles and piles of books),  as somebody who grew up poor, and who has been broke on and off for most of her adult life, who has worked as a secretary and a customer service rep…

…speaking as somebody who drives a car that’s old enough to drive itself…

…speaking as somebody who didn’t have the money to finish college…

…I call bullshit on this. 

Books can be bought second-hand, inexpensively. They can be got at thrift stores, for crying out loud, and all you need to enjoy them is a place to sit and enough light to read by. Books are re-usable and storable. You can buy them when you have a little money and keep them for later.

And they give us something to do on the bus.

For those of us who do ride or who have ridden a lot of buses.

They are, in terms of dollars per hour, the cheapest way to educate, solace, or entertain yourself. 

I have a lot of books because they are cheap, not because they are expensive. 

ETA: I agree with some of the points that the OP is making about the potential for elitism and pretentiousness in framing, but the quoted segment above is elitist nonsense in its own right. Only the middle class is intellectually curious? 

(via matociquala)

——

Warning: Scott unexpectedly blows his top a bit.

Oh, my. Where to even begin…

S.E. Smith’s piece is written with something resembling good intentions, but it’s predicated on a recontextualization of the act of book ownership that is ludicrous and insulting. It also features a defining-down of the term “upper middle class” that would be pretty breathtaking even without the rest of the junk surrounding it, but I’m not even going to really dwell on that. Let’s talk a little bit about the economics of books.

The mass-market paperback is an industrial artifact that strikes us as a bit out of place these days, not so much a fish that has smoothly evolved to walk on land but a fish that flops about after its water has receded, fighting to stay alive. The MMPB, which only truly came into being during and after World War II, was mass in a way that most of us barely comprehend in 2013 because its former sales spaces have been killed off in a process lasting more than thirty years. These things used to be bloody everywhere… every grocery store, every pharmacy, every newsstand, every gas station, every department store. The ubiquitous MMPB significantly pre-dates the era of specialized national chain book retailers (like B. Dalton, Waldenbooks, Borders, B&N, themselves now slain or transmuted by shifting commercial landscapes). The main point is, there was a time when exposure to the chance to buy cheap paperbacks was 100% integrated into the experience of going out to buy any of the other necessities of life. The rudimentary book aisles at Wal-Mart and other surviving ‘big box’ stores in 2013 are simply not analogous; not in their depth of selection, not in their price points, not in their physical accessibility.  

Return to the phrase “cheap paperbacks.” This too is critical. The MMPB was meant to be inexpensive and disposable. It was meant to attract impulse buyers. It wasn’t meant to be printed on acid-free archival paper and passed down as an heirloom for generations to come. It was banged out cheaply to be sold cheaply… or pulped if it didn’t sell quickly enough. 

These books were not status symbols of the “upper middle class.” They were dirt-cheap popular entertainment for all social classes, and all social classes were tempted by racks of the things nearly every time they entered a retail establishment. Remember that… these days the book aisle at Wal-Mart is a place you seek out on your own initiative. Forty years ago, cheap books were something the store would have tried to sell to you at multiple points, in the places you find now DVDs and candy bars and cut-rate video games. Cheap books WERE the DVDs and cut-rate video games of forty years ago.

Now, grandpa isn’t here to lament that time has moved on, kids. Grandpa likes DVDs and video games quite a bit. Grandpa just wants you to remember that books were targeted for sale to everybody, everywhere, and were not doled out of vaults at country clubs. 

We also need to talk about those magic places called used book stores, where even high-quality editions were (and are!) available at prices so low they make the fresh MMPB on a supermarket rack seem like it’s printed on sheets of iridium. I grew up in the 1980s on a steady diet of visits (thanks, mom!) to the land of the dime book, the quarter book, and the fifty-cent book. Reference books might run a dollar. Library discard sales were similar treasure hunts; so many potential hours of entertainment and education compressed into such a tiny price tag! I’m not even talking about the other major haunt of my youth, the public library, because I think it’s sufficient for my point to focus solely on book experiences that came directly out of the wallet. 

This was not, and is not, a necessarily expensive hobby. This was not, and is not, some sort of elitist fucking class marker of the indolent and narcissistic.  

"Owning large quantities of books," "being familiar with them," and "frequently referring to them" aren’t symptoms of elitism. They were, and are, and ought to be ASPIRATIONAL SYMPTOMS OF BASELINE LITERACY AND CULTURAL APPRECIATION. Social crusaders in every age of our modern world have understood that functional literacy is part of the very BEDROCK of building and empowering a population to be something other than terrified serfs. Literacy is a common weapon and books are common treasures. Trying to re-frame the act of building a personal library as shameful posturing for the rich and privileged is bullshit. It’s anti-intellectual concern trolling predicated on the flabbergasting notion that the poor don’t have an interest in books or what they represent. It’s no fucking different than the depraved right-wing notion that the poor can’t “really” be poor if they have such luxuries as refrigerators and running tap water available to them.

(via scottlynch78)

Reblogging for commentary. I own tons of books. SO many books. Like, thousands of books. My family is hardly “upper middle class”-we’re lower middle class on a lucky/good day. That sort of happens when your mom’s a teacher and your dad’s a dryland farmer. We have little enough money that my college education was paid for primarily by a needs-based scholarship. And still, *we have books*. The library booksale, where you could buy books for a dollar an inch or five dollars a flat; Goodwill and Arc and Savers, where you can buy books for fifty cents if you hit the tags right; the bargain bins at Barnes and Noble, where you can get giant hardcovers for four dollars if you play your cards right; donations from friends and family; there are SO many places to acquire and buy books. So s.e. smith is being pretty damn classist in and of zirself to say that poor people can’t read or don’t have any means to. Kindly stop. 

(via geekygothgirl)


—————————


(via darkestgreen)

…books are a durable good.  I mean, yes, if we’re talking about small children’s books, they’re probably not going to last for more than one reader, but anyone old enough not to smear jam on the pages is typically not consuming a book by reading it. 

You may well have consumed your own interest in the book, yes, because how many times are you really going to feel compelled to re-read the latest science-horror or whiteguy-thriller or weirdo-conspiracy airport-market best-seller that you bought for a bit of literary popcorn?  But be that as it may, the book itself—the object conveying the story—is still perfectly usable.  Whenever you have something like this, you’re going to get quite a healthy second-hand market.  In the case of books, that second-hand market’s been thriving since before our parents were kids. 

So yes, posting a picture of your stuffed-to-bursting bookshelves does convey a certain amount of social information, even if nothing else can be deciphered.  You, person who posted a picture of your bookshelf, are A Reader.  You read books, or at least you’d like people to think you do.  We do not need to be able to read the titles and authors on the spines to see that you believe reading books is important.  As a way to convey purchasing power? Not so much, unless your shelves are stacked with nothing but leatherbound early editions or brand-new, recently-released books.

And, of course, let’s not forget the number of bookcase pictures that have nothing whatsoever to do with rarefied intellectual aspirations.  The photo of the floor-to-ceiling bookcase with every Dragonlance book ever printed arranged in chronological order by story rather than publication date is not meant to communicate that the owner has strong opinions on the applicability of Marxist theory to freecycling.  The picture of the cozy armchair next to a shelf containing the five most recent entries in the “Left Behind” series next to Daily Devotionals and Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul is not meant to say “I work in an industry where books are valued.” They signal social information and social status, yes, but thinking of it purely in terms of mainstream economic elitism is like trying to describe a sphere using a single axis.

(via
stuckinabucket
)

“You should date a girl who reads. Date a girl who spends her money on books instead of clothes, who has problems with closet space because she has too many books. Date a girl who has a list of books she wants to read, who has had a library card since she was twelve.”

You’ve heard of this girl before, her name is Summer or Alaska or something else that sounds cutesy and different because she’s always trying to define herself as not being like ‘other girls’. The girl who reads doesn’t shop, watch sports, play video games or anything else that she deems to be beneath her. She buys books instead of clothes because who needs to be dressed, she is obviously lying if she says she understands Ulysses and doesn’t find a strange man sitting down beside her in a coffeeshop and buying her a drink even though she doesn’t want one to be predatory behavior. It’s okay to lie to or fail her because she confuses real life with fiction, wanting conflict right before the climax and then a sugar-coated happy ending.

She isn’t a girl at all. She’s an idealized portrait of the already idealized trope of the manic pixie dream girl who only exists to serve as a love interest and teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life’s many mysteries. Women do not exist to complete you or give your life meaning. It is not our job to get you to see the world with ‘renewed eyes’ and we certainly do not live just for you to project your half-baked obsessive fantasies on us and then call us foul names when we don’t fulfill them because excuse us if they’re your visions and not ours.

And the Girl who Reads is one of the more toxic incarnations of the MPDG because it tells girls that if we like clothes, boys, being around our friends , taking pride in our appearances or anything else that doesn’t seem ‘deep or intellectual’ that we’re catty and jealous. We’re constantly trying to tell ourselves that we’re not like the other girls as if there’s something wrong with them. We all want to seem special and different and quirky so that we’ll eventually find someone whose personality quirks align with ours and create a lasting love affair. The girls who are not like us are called horrible names and treated like they’re worthless as if what they choose to do with their life is our decision. And as girls we cannot help tearing each other down; we see another girl on the street and think ‘oh she’s prettier, skinnier, smarter, more popular, more athletic’.

With the Girl who Reads we measure a person’s worth based on how many John Green books are on their shelves or if they enjoy Bukowski. You do not have to be widely read or able to wax poetic about your favourite author for hours on end to be intelligent or interesting. But it is not the Girl who Reads who looks down on the girls who don’t and labels them as stupid, catty, vain, promiscuous or boring, it is the people who created the idea of her, they believe that because she is so deep and mysterious that her special snowflake syndrome will prevent judgments from being passed at her. Everybody wants to be different, everybody wants to be special but let me tell you something. You are exactly like those other girls; you all are made of the same atoms that make up the solar system but do not think that because you have nebulae in your bones that you are better than anyone else.

I am sick and tired of people romanticizing this belief that if you don’t read that you’re not worth being loved. There are countless people I know who don’t like reading and who are still worth being loved the same amount as the people who do. Tumblr users say that they want to live like the Girl who Reads and be suffocated by the amount of literature they own because clearly book hoarding is the best way to go. Great for you if you want to find someone who likes the same things as you to be in a relationship with, you should want that. But if being a hollowed out shell of a manic pixie dream girl is your ideal life then you need to think more about what it means. I refuse to be a blank canvas on which you draw out all your delusions of what life and love should feel like according to you. I do not exist to counterbalance you.

Stop looking for the Girl who Reads because you won’t find her. There are girls who read but they are not singularly formed archetypes constructed for your approval. Stop looking for someone who fits your 27 point idealized criteria of a person and find someone who’s real. Nobody ends a date by saying ‘wow I think you’re great and all but you’ve never read A Farewell to Arms so it’s not going to work out between us’. That’s just ridiculous. Date someone who makes you laugh so hard that you snort soda out of your nose and even when your shirt is soaked with carbonated bubbles they will still find you and your laugh cute when nobody else does. Date someone who understands when you’re upset with them that you are not just waiting for the plot to advance because the hero always fails at one point or another. Do not fail her, do not lie to her, because she won’t think ‘oh boy this is some conflict before the resolution’ she’ll just think you’re a jerk. Which you are. Date someone who you can love as a human and not as a fairytale. A Girl who Reads may be able to give you a world full of adventure and imagination but you know who could do that even better? A person who actually loves you .

And pardon if I’m more than a little irked by the fact that we can’t even love each other as humans anymore, pardon if I am a ‘raging feminist harpy’, pardon if I don’t want to be the dramatic backdrop to your trials and tribulations, pardon if I would rather people to see me as a person and not a walking, talking library . But I am 50 shades of done with the elitist belief that reading makes you worth more as a person and why is that? Because I am a girl who reads, I am a girl who writes but most importantly I am a girl.

written by charlesmacaulayy in response to ‘Date a Girl who Reads’ (via moniquill)

Oh man, this is exactly what I’ve been waiting for since that twee “Date a Girl Who Reads” nonsense first started making the rounds.

(via meow-sense)

(via nothingman)

Just owning books in and of itself is a telling social marker, and the number of books you own is another one. The bookshelfie and shelfie alike are ways not just to geek out with fellow book fiends, but also to send a signal about your cultural, social, and class position. Owning large quantities of books, being familiar with them, frequently referring to them, working in an industry where books are valued, these are all markers of upper middle class status, reflecting education, purchasing power, and social privilege.

s.e. smith, ‘Is the ‘Shelfie’ Just Intellectual Wankery?,’ xoJane (via se-smith)

Speaking as the grandaughter of immigrants, as the daughter of working-class people (all of whom had piles and piles of books),  as somebody who grew up poor, and who has been broke on and off for most of her adult life, who has worked as a secretary and a customer service rep…

…speaking as somebody who drives a car that’s old enough to drive itself…

…speaking as somebody who didn’t have the money to finish college…

…I call bullshit on this. 

Books can be bought second-hand, inexpensively. They can be got at thrift stores, for crying out loud, and all you need to enjoy them is a place to sit and enough light to read by. Books are re-usable and storable. You can buy them when you have a little money and keep them for later.

And they give us something to do on the bus.

For those of us who do ride or who have ridden a lot of buses.

They are, in terms of dollars per hour, the cheapest way to educate, solace, or entertain yourself. 

I have a lot of books because they are cheap, not because they are expensive. 

ETA: I agree with some of the points that the OP is making about the potential for elitism and pretentiousness in framing, but the quoted segment above is elitist nonsense in its own right. Only the middle class is intellectually curious? 

(via matociquala)

——

Warning: Scott unexpectedly blows his top a bit.

Oh, my. Where to even begin…

S.E. Smith’s piece is written with something resembling good intentions, but it’s predicated on a recontextualization of the act of book ownership that is ludicrous and insulting. It also features a defining-down of the term “upper middle class” that would be pretty breathtaking even without the rest of the junk surrounding it, but I’m not even going to really dwell on that. Let’s talk a little bit about the economics of books.

The mass-market paperback is an industrial artifact that strikes us as a bit out of place these days, not so much a fish that has smoothly evolved to walk on land but a fish that flops about after its water has receded, fighting to stay alive. The MMPB, which only truly came into being during and after World War II, was mass in a way that most of us barely comprehend in 2013 because its former sales spaces have been killed off in a process lasting more than thirty years. These things used to be bloody everywhere… every grocery store, every pharmacy, every newsstand, every gas station, every department store. The ubiquitous MMPB significantly pre-dates the era of specialized national chain book retailers (like B. Dalton, Waldenbooks, Borders, B&N, themselves now slain or transmuted by shifting commercial landscapes). The main point is, there was a time when exposure to the chance to buy cheap paperbacks was 100% integrated into the experience of going out to buy any of the other necessities of life. The rudimentary book aisles at Wal-Mart and other surviving ‘big box’ stores in 2013 are simply not analogous; not in their depth of selection, not in their price points, not in their physical accessibility.  

Return to the phrase “cheap paperbacks.” This too is critical. The MMPB was meant to be inexpensive and disposable. It was meant to attract impulse buyers. It wasn’t meant to be printed on acid-free archival paper and passed down as an heirloom for generations to come. It was banged out cheaply to be sold cheaply… or pulped if it didn’t sell quickly enough. 

These books were not status symbols of the “upper middle class.” They were dirt-cheap popular entertainment for all social classes, and all social classes were tempted by racks of the things nearly every time they entered a retail establishment. Remember that… these days the book aisle at Wal-Mart is a place you seek out on your own initiative. Forty years ago, cheap books were something the store would have tried to sell to you at multiple points, in the places you find now DVDs and candy bars and cut-rate video games. Cheap books WERE the DVDs and cut-rate video games of forty years ago.

Now, grandpa isn’t here to lament that time has moved on, kids. Grandpa likes DVDs and video games quite a bit. Grandpa just wants you to remember that books were targeted for sale to everybody, everywhere, and were not doled out of vaults at country clubs. 

We also need to talk about those magic places called used book stores, where even high-quality editions were (and are!) available at prices so low they make the fresh MMPB on a supermarket rack seem like it’s printed on sheets of iridium. I grew up in the 1980s on a steady diet of visits (thanks, mom!) to the land of the dime book, the quarter book, and the fifty-cent book. Reference books might run a dollar. Library discard sales were similar treasure hunts; so many potential hours of entertainment and education compressed into such a tiny price tag! I’m not even talking about the other major haunt of my youth, the public library, because I think it’s sufficient for my point to focus solely on book experiences that came directly out of the wallet. 

This was not, and is not, a necessarily expensive hobby. This was not, and is not, some sort of elitist fucking class marker of the indolent and narcissistic.  

"Owning large quantities of books," "being familiar with them," and "frequently referring to them" aren’t symptoms of elitism. They were, and are, and ought to be ASPIRATIONAL SYMPTOMS OF BASELINE LITERACY AND CULTURAL APPRECIATION. Social crusaders in every age of our modern world have understood that functional literacy is part of the very BEDROCK of building and empowering a population to be something other than terrified serfs. Literacy is a common weapon and books are common treasures. Trying to re-frame the act of building a personal library as shameful posturing for the rich and privileged is bullshit. It’s anti-intellectual concern trolling predicated on the flabbergasting notion that the poor don’t have an interest in books or what they represent. It’s no fucking different than the depraved right-wing notion that the poor can’t “really” be poor if they have such luxuries as refrigerators and running tap water available to them.

(via scottlynch78)

Reblogging for commentary. I own tons of books. SO many books. Like, thousands of books. My family is hardly “upper middle class”-we’re lower middle class on a lucky/good day. That sort of happens when your mom’s a teacher and your dad’s a dryland farmer. We have little enough money that my college education was paid for primarily by a needs-based scholarship. And still, *we have books*. The library booksale, where you could buy books for a dollar an inch or five dollars a flat; Goodwill and Arc and Savers, where you can buy books for fifty cents if you hit the tags right; the bargain bins at Barnes and Noble, where you can get giant hardcovers for four dollars if you play your cards right; donations from friends and family; there are SO many places to acquire and buy books. So s.e. smith is being pretty damn classist in and of zirself to say that poor people can’t read or don’t have any means to. Kindly stop. 

(via geekygothgirl)


—————————


(via darkestgreen)

…books are a durable good.  I mean, yes, if we’re talking about small children’s books, they’re probably not going to last for more than one reader, but anyone old enough not to smear jam on the pages is typically not consuming a book by reading it. 

You may well have consumed your own interest in the book, yes, because how many times are you really going to feel compelled to re-read the latest science-horror or whiteguy-thriller or weirdo-conspiracy airport-market best-seller that you bought for a bit of literary popcorn?  But be that as it may, the book itself—the object conveying the story—is still perfectly usable.  Whenever you have something like this, you’re going to get quite a healthy second-hand market.  In the case of books, that second-hand market’s been thriving since before our parents were kids. 

So yes, posting a picture of your stuffed-to-bursting bookshelves does convey a certain amount of social information, even if nothing else can be deciphered.  You, person who posted a picture of your bookshelf, are A Reader.  You read books, or at least you’d like people to think you do.  We do not need to be able to read the titles and authors on the spines to see that you believe reading books is important.  As a way to convey purchasing power? Not so much, unless your shelves are stacked with nothing but leatherbound early editions or brand-new, recently-released books.

And, of course, let’s not forget the number of bookcase pictures that have nothing whatsoever to do with rarefied intellectual aspirations.  The photo of the floor-to-ceiling bookcase with every Dragonlance book ever printed arranged in chronological order by story rather than publication date is not meant to communicate that the owner has strong opinions on the applicability of Marxist theory to freecycling.  The picture of the cozy armchair next to a shelf containing the five most recent entries in the “Left Behind” series next to Daily Devotionals and Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul is not meant to say “I work in an industry where books are valued.” They signal social information and social status, yes, but thinking of it purely in terms of mainstream economic elitism is like trying to describe a sphere using a single axis.

(via stuckinabucket)

(via ever-so-slightly-monstrous)

This is where – if you are the kind of person that thinks that books should be read with their authors in mind – it becomes relevant that JD Salinger saw more combat during World War II than almost any other American. The ‘Great American War Novels’ of that generation (Catch 22, Slaughterhouse-Five, The Naked and The Dead) were all written by men who saw far less of war’s horror than JD Salinger did. He was on Utah Beach on D-Day, at the Battle of the Bulge and he was one of the first Americans to enter a liberated concentration camp. And yet, Salinger returned home and wrote, not about war but, about Holden Caulfield bumming around New York City. So, you can say that the stakes aren’t high in this novel, but as Salinger well knew, the cruel and phony world of adults doesn’t just treat people like Holden Caulfield poorly, it kills them.

John Green, Crash Course (Literature)

(Relevant given the widening release of the documentary SALINGER)

(via fishingboatproceeds)

Flowers in the Attic is being remade into a Lifetime movie. Read this interesting interview with V.C. Andrew’s ghostwriter,  Andrew Neiderman, who has written 70 of Andrew’s books since her death. He’s also written 44 books under his own name, including The Devil’s Advocate (later made into a film with Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino and Charlize Theron). He does not approve of the first Flowers in the Attic film but says this one is going to be awesome.

flanneryogonner:

Found from various places online:

The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

Angela Y. Davis - Are Prisons Obsolete?

Angela Y. Davis - Race, Women, and Class

The Communist Manifesto - Marx and Engels

Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde

Three Guineas by Virginia Woolf

Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America- Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki

Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism - bell hooks

Feminism is for Everybody - bell hooks

outlaw culture - bell hooks

Faces at the Bottom of the Well - Derrick Bell

Sex, Power, and Consent - Anastasia Powell

I am Your Sister - Audre Lorde

Patricia Hill Collins - Black Feminist Thought

Gender Trouble - Judith Butler

Four books by Frantz Fanon

Their Eyes Were Watching God - Zora Neale Hurston

Medical Apartheid - Harriet Washington

Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory  - edited by Michael Warner

Colonialism/Postcolonialism - Ania Loomba

Discipline and Punish - Michel Foucault

The Gloria Anzaldua Reader

Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher

This Bridge Called by Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color by Cherríe Moraga & Gloria Anzaldúa

What is Cultural Studies? - John Storey 

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture - John Storey 

The Disability Studies Reader 

Michel Foucault - Interviews and Other Writings 

Michel Foucault - The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1Vol. 2Vol. 3 

Michel Foucault - The Archeology of Knowledge 

This blog also has a lot more. 

(Sorry they aren’t organized very well.)

(via marvelous-merbutler)

#Sociology literally means the #study of companionship. It comes from the #Latin “socius” meaning “companion” and the #Greek “logos” meaning “the #study of.” Another way to think about this: what makes up #social membership? How and why do people form different social groups? What are the societal structures that shape social interaction and subsequently give our lives meaning? Comte first popularised this term in 1824. He sought to investigate the laws of #society using methods from the natural sciences. Later  sociologists developed different methods that were less about cause and effect and more about the complex interactions between individuals, #history and social institutions like the law, economy, religion, medicine, media, and so on. This photo comes from the #Penguin #Dictionary of Sociology by Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner. #penguinbooks #references #socialscience #books #society High-res

#Sociology literally means the #study of companionship. It comes from the #Latin “socius” meaning “companion” and the #Greek “logos” meaning “the #study of.” Another way to think about this: what makes up #social membership? How and why do people form different social groups? What are the societal structures that shape social interaction and subsequently give our lives meaning? Comte first popularised this term in 1824. He sought to investigate the laws of #society using methods from the natural sciences. Later sociologists developed different methods that were less about cause and effect and more about the complex interactions between individuals, #history and social institutions like the law, economy, religion, medicine, media, and so on. This photo comes from the #Penguin #Dictionary of Sociology by Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner. #penguinbooks #references #socialscience #books #society

The new Puberty Blues release makes me think of Love and Betrayal and Hold the Mayo by Francine Pascal. To bring the Pascal joy to Tumblr, I Googled an image and… what the hell? Amanda Seyfried’s face was on the cover. Here you go.

So many Francine Pacal memories… Lowenstein, Lowenstein…
This just in - there’s a terrible follow up series to the Sweet Valley High books designed for “adults”. It sounds Just Awful. Also Diablo Cody is apparently adapting Sweet Valley High for the screen. Geepers.

The new Puberty Blues release makes me think of Love and Betrayal and Hold the Mayo by Francine Pascal. To bring the Pascal joy to Tumblr, I Googled an image and… what the hell? Amanda Seyfried’s face was on the cover. Here you go.

So many Francine Pacal memories… Lowenstein, Lowenstein…

This just in - there’s a terrible follow up series to the Sweet Valley High books designed for “adults”. It sounds Just Awful. Also Diablo Cody is apparently adapting Sweet Valley High for the screen. Geepers.